On
Friday, 17 February, the sixth session of the United Nations Forum on
Forests (UNFF-6) worked towards building consensus on the future of the
international arrangement on forests (IAF). In the morning sessions,
delegates convened in two Working Groups to continue negotiating the
Chair’s draft text. Working Group I (WGI) discussed the preamble, while
WGII negotiated several aspects of working modalities. In the afternoon,
delegates met in an informal plenary session to review the week’s
challenges and achievements.

WORKING GROUP I

SOUTH
AFRICA, for the AFRICAN GROUP, and CHILE requested, respectively, French
and Spanish translations of the EU proposal on strengthening the IAF and
the non-binding voluntary instrument.

PREAMBLE: On recalling ECOSOC resolution 2000/35 and General
Assembly resolution 57/270B, the US withdrew its proposed amendments
specifying the contents of these resolutions.

On
reaffirming commitment to the principles of the Rio Declaration, BRAZIL
for the AMAZON GROUP, opposed by Austria for the EU, and the US,
insisted on references to the principles on national sovereignty and
common but differentiated responsibilities, stating that these were of
particular reference to forests. SWITZERLAND, supported by the AMAZON
GROUP but opposed by the AFRICAN GROUP, proposed including the full text
of the principle on the responsibility of countries to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction not cause damage to other states or
environments outside their jurisdiction. The US had reservations
regarding “reaffirming commitment to” existing multilateral
legally-binding agreements relevant to forests, to which not all
countries were party, and proposed a separate paragraph “recalling” such
agreements. INDONESIA, supported by VENEZUELA, restated his proposal to
place “recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome” in a separate paragraph,
whereas the EU preferred to include it in the paragraph on “reaffirming
commitment.”

On
quoting from other international agreements, the EU said that it should
clearly add value and would need to be balanced. On recognizing the
importance of benefits provided by forests, the US, CHINA and INDONESIA
expressed concern about the possible proliferation of long lists of
forest benefits, principles and SFM components, and suggested
considering more general formulations. On COSTA RICA’s proposal to
include non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and environmental services as
benefits provided by forests, MEXICO, ARGENTINA, the EU, SWITZERLAND,
CHILE, AUSTRALIA and NORWAY supported, and INDONESIA, INDIA, BRAZIL and
VENEZUELA opposed. Delegates agreed on: including “trees outside of
forests,” proposed by the AFRICAN GROUP; poverty “eradication” rather
than “alleviation,” as proposed by VENEZUELA; and referring to
“internationally agreed development goals, including the millennium
development goals (MDGs),” as proposed by the EU.

On
expressing concern about continued deforestation and forest degradation,
the US, supported by IRAN and the AFRICAN GOUP, favored adding “the slow
rate of afforestation and forest recovery.” COSTA RICA suggested
retaining forest “cover” recovery until further consideration. On the
resulting impact on local and national economies, delegates debated
adding “international,” stating “economies at all levels,” or just
noting “economies.” On the resulting adverse impact on the environment,
the US, opposed by INDONESIA, proposed “including biological diversity.”
SWITZERLAND, supported by the US, preferred referring to these as
“critical challenges” rather than concerns.

On
recognizing the need for financing, capacity building, transfer of
environmentally sound technologies and good governance, the EU clarified
its proposal to add “in developing countries, in particular the least
developed countries.” IRAN noted that reference to developing countries
should be placed before “good governance,” since governance applies to
all countries. INDONESIA preferred “new and additional” financing. The
EU expressed concerns on whether the Chair’s text related to
strengthening the IAF or to the voluntary instrument.

WORKING GROUP II

MODALITIES: Underscoring the importance of creating an agreement on
forests that is inclusive, strong and a “best compromise,” the EU,
proposed reframing the negotiated text with a view to asking the Bureau
to recommend the agreement for adoption by the General Assembly, after
which it would be open to subscription by individual countries.
Responding to SWITZERLAND’s request for clarification regarding the
difference between an ECOSOC resolution and the EU’s proposal, she
explained that although the legal status remains unchanged, countries
would be able to sign the “instrument” by diplomatic note, adding political weight to its
otherwise non-binding nature.

On
monitoring, assessment and reporting (MAR), the AMAZON GROUP, supported
by CHILE, the AFRICAN GROUP, INDONESIA and PAKISTAN, preferred the
original Chair’s text, while TURKEY supported the EU formulation.
SWITZERLAND, supported by the EU, MALAYSIA and PAKISTAN, wished to
include “voluntary sector reviews.” The EU argued against the US’s
suggestion of adding “or” to the list of national measures, policies,
actions and targets, stating that it weakened the provision. SWITZERLAND
argued against formulating new terms of reference.

On the
Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), the EU clarified that she
favors a consolidated report from all CPF members. The EU, supported by
the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, stated that it is difficult to commit to goals
by 2015 when their content remained uncertain. The AMAZON GROUP wished
to add “and progress on means of implementation.”

SWITZERLAND, supported by KENYA, CHILE and GUATEMALA, suggested that the
achievement of the global goals/strategic objectives should take into
account the seven thematic elements of SFM.

On the
review of the IAF, KENYA, supported by SWITZERLAND and MALAYSIA,
suggested moving this to the end of the section.

On
strengthening the UNFF Secretariat, the US, supported by CHILE,
suggested this be done “through voluntary extra-budgetary resources to
better fulfill its function,” while the RUSSIAN FEDERATION suggested
this should occur “within existing resources.” SWITZERLAND and the EU
requested that this text be bracketed.

On
encouraging voluntary contributions to the trust fund, the US, supported
by SWITZERLAND and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, suggested this be targeted at
“donor countries, other countries in a position to do so, and other
entities interested in the effectiveness of the IAF.”

The
US, supported by GUATEMALA, requested that the Secretariat make
available a list of trust fund contributors and the types of activities
that the trust fund has supported.

On the
role of the CPF, SWITZERLAND, with INDONESIA, supported the deletion of
“under the guidance of FAO,” suggesting this should be left up to the
CPF. The AFRICAN GROUP cautioned against repetition of the ECOSOC
resolution.

The EU
urged valuing the CPF and its role in the future IAF, and the AMAZON
GROUP suggested “recognize and strengthen.”

The
US, supported by SWITZERLAND, suggested that member states that are also
members of the governing bodies of the CPF should encourage the
integration of forest-related programmes.

AFTERNOON PLENARY

Chair
Judith Mbula Bahemuka introduced the new compilation text, complimenting
delegates for their cordiality, transparency and recent flexibility in
identifying the key problems and moving their resolution forward. She
said delegates must now: agree on the chapeau to the goals negotiated at
UNFF-5; draft a strong ECOSOC resolution on strengthening the IAF; and
decide whether to negotiate a voluntary instrument, accord or
understanding that includes at least an indicative list of elements and
a clear process to finalize the instrument.

The EU
said his proposal on indicative elements of a non-binding instrument
incorporates proposals offered by Brazil and the US, and includes,
inter alia: global goals; national commitments; working modalities;
MAR; technology transfer; and capacity building. He proposed that
remaining negotiations be based on this architecture.

The
AMAZON GROUP identified common ground between delegations and groups,
welcomed progress made towards a strong ECOSOC resolution and a
clear-cut instrument on SFM, and urged renewed efforts in the following
week.

The
AFRICAN GROUP, supported by SENEGAL and CAMEROON, congratulated
delegates on their spirit of willingness to make progress.

ARGENTINA hoped that progress made during this Forum will form the basis
of a new forest process and, with the EUï¿½s proposal, result in a strong
voluntary agreement.

AUSTRALIA argued that if agreement was not reached by the end of UNFF-6,
an inter-sessional meeting should be scheduled to avoid UNFF-7 being
used to finalize the resolution and agreement.

SWITZERLAND, INDONESIA and IRAN noted the good spirit of the progress
and constructive engagement.

The
RUSSIAN FEDERATION, supported by the US, underscored that he would
welcome the incorporation of ECOSOC resolution language in the draft
voluntary agreement, with the US adding that any additions would only be
agreed to on a case-by-case basis.

GUATEMALA, on behalf of the Central American Integration System,
stressed that she reserves the right to renegotiate any text currently
agreed upon ad ref.

SENEGAL requested a French translation of the Chairï¿½s compilation text.
INDIA said that the strengthened IAF should address financial resources,
capacity building and technology transfer. PAKISTAN noted that the needs
of many stakeholders had to be considered in an IAF, and called for an
ad hoc expert group to negotiate a code based on the conceptual
framework developed at this meeting. CHILE hoped that negotiations would
not get mired in detail. CHINA hoped to agree on a resolution at this
meeting, and encouraged maintaining the spirit of cooperation. CAMEROON
suggested focusing negotiations on the resolution, and requested that
the Co-Chairs streamline the Chairï¿½s text. SAUDI ARABIA said that
achieving an LBI on forests is extremely important. JAPAN noted that
UNFF-6 was the most productive of the two UNFF meetings he had attended.
CAMBODIA called attention to forest clearing and land encroachment as
causes of forest degradation.

On
Chair Bahemukaï¿½s proposal to have the Bureau streamline the text, Brazil
requested that the compilation text remain on the negotiating table as
an alternative. CAMEROON, supported by VENEZUELA, suggested keeping the
compilation text as a background document, while using the streamlined
document as a basis for negotiation.

IN THE CORRIDORS

In the
afternoon plenary, Chair Bahemuka characterized the dayï¿½s prevailing
mood as enthused with ï¿½winds of flexibility.ï¿½ While delegates were
united in welcoming progress towards a strong ECOSOC resolution and
voluntary agreement, they were divided over the EUï¿½s proposal to ask the
Bureau to recommend the agreement for adoption by the General Assembly.
One delegate welcomed the move, arguing that it would strengthen the
future instrument. Another delegate remained skeptical regarding
commitment to an agreement that remains inherently voluntary. Several
delegates have cautioned that increasing forest-related commitments
required of developing countries, in the absence of improved means of
implementation, may prove to be fruitless.

Will the winds of positive change flow into the second week of
negotiations? Given the unpredictability of the recent weather outside
the UN, it is anyoneï¿½s guess.

This issue of
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin ï¿½ <enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Reem Hajjar, Twig Johnson,
Ph.D., Harry Jonas, and
Peter Wood. The
Digital Editor is Leila
Mead. The Editor is Pamela
S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>.
The Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, and the
European Commission (DG-ENV).
General Support for the
Bulletin during 2006 is
provided by the United
Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the
Government of Australia,
SWAN International, the
Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies -
IGES) and the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (through the
Global Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors
and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or
other donors. Excerpts from
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
UNFF-6 can be contacted by
e-mail at <peterw@iisd.org>.